( cantejondo )

Comments made by cantejondo

@Raphael, thank you for replying. I think you have actually helped to prove my point. Precisely for the reasons that you and I have mentioned, it would appear that one of three things must be true. Either...

A) the guest needs to be a tax professional, ready to answer even the most nitty-gritty question; B) the calls need to be more carefully screened so that the questions are both of greater general interest and fall within the non-tax-professional guest's expertise; C) having listeners call in to ask tax questions at the last possible minute is a bad idea for a show.

Sorry, Tammy, I didn't mean to suggest that KPBS isn't already airing programs such as "The CA Report" or "The Editors' Roundtable". I listen to both regularly and enjoy them very much.

Given the number of posts here lamenting what is perceived as the loss of local content/focus, I was wondering what other programs there are out there that are similar to Editors' Roundtable, California Report, etc. Do they exist? Are they affordable? Would their content and quality satisfy the contingent of people who are clamoring for more Focus On My Back Yard? (FOMBY-ism?)

Thank you, KPBS, I'm very hopeful about these changes! I love "Here & Now" and "The World", but have frequently found the time slot inconvenient. Moving both of them earlier in the morning will make it easier for me to tune in and enjoy.

Also, having lived in Canada for several years, I sometimes miss the CBC so I look forward to hearing from folks above the 49th parallel once again. The fact that we will be able to hear international programming that is not necessarily *British* programming is very much appreciated.

Out of curiosity, are there other English-speaking news analysis programs available from other global markets-- say, from Australia, New Zealand, or South Africa? I would love to hear that kind of diversity. And are there other California-focused programs (like the California Report) or locally oriented discussion forums (like our Editors' Roundtable) that might satisfy the listeners clamoring for more local flavor?

While I certainly appreciate having the opportunity to air tax questions, some of which can be quite complex and time-consuming to explain much less answer, at least half of the IRS spokesperson's answers were "I dunno off the top of my head, go talk to a tax professional." Anyone could have told your callers that-- no special knowledge required. The most helpful advice the guy gave was to offer the relevant IRS publication numbers, all of which are readily available on the IRS's website, so again... why invite this guy instead of a search engine? This was an aggravating hour of programming.

Okay, then defund the USDA for the Shirley Sherrod debacle. Taking away those $200-plus b-b-b-billion the USDA gets every year will make a dent that is literally 500x larger than the $430 m-m-m-million the GOP wants to deny NPR/CPB in the name of the $14 t-t-t-trillion hole this country is in.

I mean, really. What do we need a department of agriculture for, anyway? Why can't private industry make our food safe all by itself? If that "issue" is so important to you and your fellow ideologues, then you and your fellow ideologues ought to pony up the cash and fund it all yourselves, right?

All. By. Your. Self.

There is no national "we", no shared set of values by which "we" in this country can possibly determine what is and is not "essential" to fund or cut. Why put the burden of your pet project's continued existence on the backs of tax-payers when you can separate every agency into individual-sized pieces and vote them off the island when they displease you?

My question to the Ombudsman is: what constitutes "news-worthiness" in the eyes of NPR in particular and journalism more generally? Is there an industry standard beyond popularity or controversy? How do consumers of news know when they're being fed fluff, and what can they do to push back against it?

I just want to register my objection to the assertion Mr Redding made about the effectiveness of phenylalinine compared to pseudo-ephedrine. I have frequent sinus problems, for which I have taken regular Sudafed (to my relief) and the non-pseudo-ephedrine-show-your-drivers'-license-to-a-pharmacist products like Sudafed PE. The pseudo-Sudafed does NOT have the same effect-- nowhere close! Maybe other people get the same sinus-clearing effect, but no one in my family gets any results from phenylalinine, so I refuse to take the fake stuff and warn everyone I know not to bother with it, either.

I care about the meth problem, and I agree that there has to be some way to separate criminal uses of substances from ordinary, appropriate, legal uses, but I cannot abide being lied to about alternatives.